AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 versus the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both entries have empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and zero win counts for either side. This means the database currently lacks any measured performance comparison between these two parts, so all analysis must rely on the architectural and specification data provided.

The absence of benchmark data is itself informative. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 carries an average benchmark score of 0 and rests at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM also shows an average benchmark score of 0 and the same 50th percentile placement. Without measured results, neither part can be declared faster in any workload category. The comparison must instead be drawn from the raw compute resources, memory configuration, and feature sets listed in the database.

The biggest numerical advantage for the NVIDIA part appears in raw compute throughput. The N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS FP32 and 28.83 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 7.885 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). That is roughly 3.66 times higher peak floating-point throughput for the NVIDIA chip on paper. The texture rate follows a similar pattern, with the N1X 48SM at 900.9 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400, a factor of about 7.31. The pixel rate also favors NVIDIA, 112.6 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s, a 1.60 times advantage.

The AMD part counters with a much lower power envelope. The W7400 lists a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the N1X 48SM has an unknown TDP and no suggested PSU figure. The AMD card is also a single-slot add-in board with dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, whereas the NVIDIA part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no listed physical dimensions. These factors point to fundamentally different deployment scenarios.

Memory capacity heavily favors the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. The database lists 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 16 times capacity difference and a 1.58 times bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part. However, the memory types differ substantially, with GDDR6 typically serving discrete graphics while LPDDR5X is designed for integrated and low-power contexts.

Clock speeds show the NVIDIA chip running at a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost, compared to the AMD chip at 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. The memory clock for NVIDIA is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective), while AMD runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The AMD memory clock is higher in raw terms, but the wider NVIDIA bus and larger capacity produce greater overall bandwidth.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the database entries, the NVIDIA N1X 48SM appears engineered for maximum compute density and memory capacity. Its 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores dwarf the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also carries 192 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely. For workloads that scale with shader count, tensor operations, or massive memory footprints, the data points squarely to the N1X 48SM.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 offers a more modest but complete discrete GPU package. It has a defined TDP of 55 W, a suggested PSU of 250 W, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is an IGP with a single HDMI output and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The AMD part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs. For software ecosystems that require these graphics APIs, the AMD card is the only viable option in this comparison.

The release dates differ by roughly ten months, with the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 dated 2025-08-02 and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM dated 2026-05-31. The AMD part lists a predecessor, Radeon Pro Vega, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor listed. Both are marked as Active in production status.

The verdict from the data is clear: the NVIDIA N1X 48SM is the higher-performance part on paper for compute-heavy and memory-hungry tasks, but the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the only discrete, API-complete graphics solution among the two. Users requiring standard graphics APIs or multi-display output have one choice. Users requiring maximum throughput and 128 GB of memory have the other.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in areas tied to its discrete, API-complete design. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling compatibility with a broad range of graphics software. Its four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs allow multi-monitor setups, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM offers only a single HDMI port. The AMD card also operates at a 55 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU, making it suitable for systems with modest power budgets. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is less demanding than the NVIDIA part's PCIe 5.0 x16, which may matter for older platforms.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in raw compute and memory capacity. Its 28.83 TFLOPS FP32 output is roughly 3.66 times the AMD part's 7.885 TFLOPS. The 128 GB LPDDR5X memory is 16 times larger than the AMD card's 8 GB GDDR6, and the 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is 1.58 times higher. The NVIDIA chip also has 6144 shading units versus 1792, 384 TMUs versus 112, and 192 tensor cores versus none. The 48 RT cores on NVIDIA compare to 28 on AMD, a 1.71 times advantage. The texture rate of 900.9 GTexel/s is about 7.31 times the AMD figure, and the pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s is 1.60 times higher.

The transistor density favors AMD, with 65.2M transistors per square millimeter on a 204 mm² die containing 13,300 million transistors. The NVIDIA part lists an unknown transistor count but a 382 mm² die size. The AMD die is 178 mm² smaller, which combined with the 55 W TDP suggests a more power-efficient physical footprint, though no efficiency metric is directly recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 6144 shading units, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, a 16 times difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 support DirectX?

A: Yes, the AMD part lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM runs at a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 runs at a 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost.

Q: What is the bus interface for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA N1X 48SM has tensor cores, with 192 listed. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no tensor cores recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 204 mm² and contains 13,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the GB20B chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture. It belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 382 mm², but the transistor count is listed as unknown, so no density figure is available.

The memory architectures differ fundamentally. The AMD card uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD memory clock is 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA memory clock is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

The compute resource layout diverges sharply. AMD provides 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores, with no tensor cores. NVIDIA provides 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The AMD part achieves 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate. The NVIDIA part achieves 112.6 GPixel/s and 900.9 GTexel/s.

The AMD card is a discrete single-slot solution with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with an unknown TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the NVIDIA part has one HDMI output.

Specification Differences

The process node differs, with AMD at 6 nm and NVIDIA at 5 nm, both from TSMC. The die size differs, with the AMD chip at 204 mm² and the NVIDIA chip at 382 mm². The transistor count is 13,300 million for AMD and unknown for NVIDIA. The transistor density is 65.2M per mm² for AMD and not listed for NVIDIA.

The base clock is 330 MHz for AMD versus 741 MHz for NVIDIA. The boost clock is 1100 MHz for AMD versus 2346 MHz for NVIDIA. The memory clock is 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory size is 8 GB for AMD versus 128 GB for NVIDIA. Memory type is GDDR6 for AMD versus LPDDR5X for NVIDIA. Bus width is 128 bit for AMD versus 256 bit for NVIDIA. Bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s for AMD versus 273.2 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Shading units are 1792 for AMD versus 6144 for NVIDIA. TMUs are 112 for AMD versus 384 for NVIDIA. ROPs are 64 for AMD versus 48 for NVIDIA. RT cores are 28 for AMD versus 48 for NVIDIA. Tensor cores are not listed for AMD versus 192 for NVIDIA.

Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s for AMD versus 112.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s for AMD versus 900.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 7.885 TFLOPS for AMD versus 28.83 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD versus 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

TDP is 55 W for AMD versus unknown for NVIDIA. Slot width is single-slot for AMD versus IGP for NVIDIA. Power connectors are none for both. The suggested PSU is 250 W for AMD versus not listed for NVIDIA. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA.

Display outputs are four DisplayPort 2.1 for AMD versus one HDMI for NVIDIA. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three. Dimensions are 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width for AMD, with no dimensions listed for NVIDIA. The release date is 2025-08-02 for AMD versus 2026-05-31 for NVIDIA. The AMD part lists a predecessor, Radeon Pro Vega, while the NVIDIA part has none.